| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "Anton A(dot) Melnikov" <a(dot)melnikov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Use XLOG_CONTROL_FILE macro everywhere? |
| Date: | 2024-04-26 20:51:17 |
| Message-ID: | 30207.1714164677@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 8:04 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>> Not sure that I would bother with a second one. But, well, why not if
>> people want to rename it, as long as you keep compatibility.
> I vote for just standardizing on XLOG_CONTROL_FILE. That name seems
> sufficiently intuitive to me, and I'd rather have one identifier for
> this than two. It's simpler that way.
+1. Back when we did the great xlog-to-wal renaming, we explicitly
agreed that we wouldn't change internal symbols referring to xlog.
It might or might not be appropriate to revisit that decision,
but I sure don't want to do it piecemeal, one symbol at a time.
Also, if we did rename this one, the logical choice would be
WAL_CONTROL_FILE not PG_CONTROL_FILE.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-26 21:03:49 | Re: DROP OWNED BY fails to clean out pg_init_privs grants |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2024-04-26 20:45:24 | Re: New committers: Melanie Plageman, Richard Guo,New committers: Melanie Plageman, Richard Guo |